[Scenic Sounds]

My mind may be in some sort of meltdown, but I can't think of a reason why they COULDN'T admit most of Scott's public statements, even if he never took the witness stand.

Example: A guy commits a crime; the police arrest him, and he ends up giving them a confession under legitimate questioning by them. Those guys' statements get admitted against them... why not Scott's?

Well, you're right, the prosecution should be able to admit them, if they're relevant. However, even if they're relevant, the court has the discretion to exclude them if their probative value is substantially outweighed by the likelihood that their admission would be unduly time-consuming, would be unduly prejudicial, or would confuse or mislead the jury.

But most of the relevant ones should be admitted.

BTW, have y'all got this case cracked yet? ;-)

[Devil_Anse]

Ah yes, you must be referring to cu-MULE-ative evidence! (Pronunciation footnote: Chris Darden from OJ trial.)

The beauty of it is that he did so much talking on videotape. That way they'll get to see his demeanor, as well as hear his words.